Dinosaurs | Imamother

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 1:21 pm

I think I've had enough of this. Shabbos prep is calling.

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 1:23 pm

Good Shabbos!

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 2:50 pm

As I've been chopping my carrots, I've been thinking about this further.

Imagine a scenario of a couple who have been together for 50 years. They've been absolutely devoted to each other, committed in every way. One day someone comes to the man and says, "I hate to break it to you, but I have proof that your wife hasn't been faithful to you."
"Impossible!" says the man. "My wife and I love each other and she would never do such a thing."
"But I have photographic evidence!" says the fellow.
"I don't care about your photos!" he replies. "I know my wife. I know with absolute certainty that she would never be unfaithful! I know it with every fiber of my being!"
"But there are people who can testify to it!"
"It doesn't matter," says the man. "I know you're wrong, and there must be some explanation. I trust my wife implicitly and there's no way in the world she would do that. Your 'evidence' doesn't mean anything compared to a half-century of devotion which we've shared."

Let's think about this case. Is the man being logical here? Well, I think that on the one hand, one might say he isn't, since he seems to be in denial of the facts. But on the other hand, one might say that he's being very sensible, because his personal experience leads him to conclude that such an act is impossible. Is it logical to dismiss one's personal experiences and a lifetime of commitment?

I find it totally understandable when one's strong feelings of trust outweighs any external "evidence", but I don't think that deciding in that way can actually be considered acting intellectually honest. Intellectual honesty is by its very nature characterized by an unbiased attitude where one's personal beliefs do not come into play. Now, to be clear: this doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn based on what seems to be intellectual honesty is always going to be correct and true. Maybe those photos were doctored, and the witnesses were liars, and all the evidence was indeed fabricated. But to just reject the evidence based on the feelings he had - even if he was right - would not be acting in an intellectually honest manner.

Using this analogy, I can understand, and respect, that based on their immense trust in the literal truth of the torah, it makes sense to many people to place greater weight on what the torah seems to say about nature and reality than about what scientific investigations lead one to conclude, but it seems clear to me that that decision is not one that could be considered intellectually honest. Such a decision is being made based on personal beliefs and trust, which are fine - and may well even be more right! - but they go against the very definition of intellectual honesty, which is a decision-making process devoid of bias or personal beliefs.

Last edited by BlueRose52 on Fri, Jan 17 2014, 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ octopus

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 3:45 pm

am I being stupid here? I don't see the conflict between torah and science. I think a lot of what science states can be found in the torah!

↑ DrMom ↓

Sat, Jan 18 2014, 12:25 pm

yogabird wrote:

Fossil fuels are made from the remains of buried dead organisms. Not dinosaurs.

1. Um, dinosaurs are organisms.

2. The current scientific understsnding is that the fossil fuels tht we use today are derived from organisms that lived millions of years *before* dinosaurs. Which may be even more problematic for you.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sat, Jan 18 2014, 6:56 pm

yogabird wrote:

Fossil fuels are made from the remains of buried dead organisms. Not dinosaurs.

DrMom wrote:

1. Um, dinosaurs are organisms.

I assumed she knew that and meant "the remains of buried dead organisms other than dinosaurs."

At least, that's what I meant when I thanked her for enlightening me to that fact!

↑ zaq ↓

Sat, Jan 18 2014, 8:11 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Because for some people, it's not just about the praxis, it's about the bren too.

My bren or lack thereof is nobody's business but mine and the KBH's. Not that my praxis or lack thereof is really anybody else's business, either, but I can see why someone would want to know about my kashrut before eating in my house.

↑ zaq

Sat, Jan 18 2014, 8:20 pm

In any event, I believe absolutely in dinosaurs. I am one.

↑ gold21

Sat, Jan 18 2014, 8:57 pm

zaq wrote:

In any event, I believe absolutely in dinosaurs. I am one.

Speaking of which, there's a t-rex in my basement. Zaq, get out Exploding anger

Pick on someone your own size, girl

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Sat, Jan 18 2014, 9:21 pm

zaq wrote:

Unless I'm invited to eat your food your praxis isn't my business either, that's not the point.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:45 am

I think that BlueRose's points regarding intellectual honesty are pretty good.

However I also think that when it comes to intellectual dis-honesty the school of the "skeptics" for lack of a better term make pretty wide use of it.

And examples abound.

I'm the amother from the thread on Biblical Criticism that got locked. On that thread I made a pretty basic point.

Most everytime that someone casually dismisses the Kuzari's proof as to Matan Torah they have never ever read through the entire presentation by the Kuzari, nor have they actually sat through one of the present day presentations of it.

Yet those that present it, those who argue for it, actually have seen both sides of the coin.

And I witness this all the time my DH (and he isn't even a professional!) will start with someone. Invariably th reply is immediate "oh that's the Kuzari I'm not interested it's been disproven". My DH will then ask "have you ever gone through it inside"?
No.
"Have you ever actually attended a presentation of it"?
No.
Yet somehow that person claims "intellectual honesty".

Another Ex.?

Dr Lee M. Spetner is not a "casual semi-professional scientist" he is a physicist by trade (graduate of M.I.T) who has actually taught at Johns Hopkins. He is also known for arguing pretty forcefully against the aspects of evolution that lead to the Common Descent theory. He has a book about it that's coming out soon, an excerpt of which was published in Dialogue Fall 2013 No. 4.

In it Dr. Spetner makes the point the point repeatedly that many reasons for certain things (plant distribution, fossils) are dismissed by pro-evolutionists by them stating "God would'nt do it that way".
"It makes no sense for God to have done it that way".
Or "God would'nt test us that way".
All of the above are essentially theological arguements.
It is a theological position that God would not do xyz.
How do they know? They are not, nor do they claim to be theologians. How can they dismiss positions based on their "knowledge" of what God would do when they themselves are not only not theologians, In most cases they are athiests".

(As an aside, I recall once listening to a fascinating 60 minutes interview witha brilliant scientist, the interview concluded with the reporter asking the person if he believed in God, the person ansewered in the negative. The reporter then asked him. Why not? The reply given was that the universe was so incredibly complicated that it was impossible for a God to have created it!)

If a theologian can in fact make the arguement, based on religous concepts and sources, that in fact God would do xyz, then on what basis do they disagree, what knowledge of theology do the scientists claim that gives them a basis for their position?

And furthermore if they do disagree, without any knowledge of the theology of the religon they are casually dismissing, then how is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Another case of intellectual dishonesty in the rational judaisim camp regards kabbola or esoteric judaisim.
Those who are slightly more knowledgeable in rational judaisim claim to follow the view that does not ascribe to Kabbola.
This is of course needed because a great many of thier qoute on qoute problems are ansewered by Kabbalistic knowledge, furthermore a great many of their sources (including Moreh Nevuchim) are comprimised when one understands that they were dismissed once the Zohar was discovered and accepted.

Yet the process of the Zohar being accepted was pretty brutal. The Ramban himslef spent a long time with a proponent to see if it was in fact correct on a Torah level. This continued through the centuries. The Vilna Gaon was a re-knowned scholar who wrote commentary on the entire body of the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, And the Esoteric sections of the Torah.

Yet those who disagree with the overwhlming majority of Jewish Scholarship over the period of about 1000 years that all verified the accuracy of the Torah don't give a reason as to why.
They simply state " I don't accept it".

On what basis?
How do they have the temerity to not just disagree with the Jewish Great's for centuries, yet not even se the need to explain on what basis.

Another example would be in Biblical Criticism.

Much of Biblical Criticism is based upon ideas that don't have a leg to stand on if one has even a basic knowledge of the Oral Law.
An example would be the names of G-d, all of which have different meanings according to Jewish tradition and as such are used in different contexts.
Another would be the different Conquest accounts in Joshua and and Judges.
Yet those that implyt on the one hand they are knowledgeable in Oral Law (Chazal) on the other swallow the questions asked by those who had no idea of the basics of Chazal, as if they are legitimate in the context of Jewish Studies.
Not for nothing did Rabbi Samson R. Hirsh write in the beginning of the Nineteen Letters that understanding the Torah properly requires studying the Torah from "within Torah", not from "without".

So, yes I agree that a drop more intellectual honesty is needed I just wish the skeptics and "rational judaisim" would practice it.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:10 am

I'm sure you're absolutely right that there's plenty of intellectual dishonesty all around, but did you actually just argue that the rationalists should be looking to the Zohar for ways to resolve their questions? Are you kidding me? The school of Rationalism is fundamentally opposed to Mysticism. They don't see it as a legitimate approach because it flies in the face of every single tenet of their philosophy. It's not an arbitrary, "we just don't like it." (And let's not get into that whole question of its authorship...)

That's like telling an atheist, "All your questions are answered in the Torah! Why aren't you considering what that has to say about your issues?! If you're so into being intellectually honest, why not give that a shot?!"

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:22 am

I acknowledged that RJ is opposed to Zohar.

That was precisley my point.

RJ protests the fact that their "interpetations" of the Torah are widely dismissed in the "chareidi" camp and they themselves are viwed as not being legit.

They present this as modern day "right wing" judaisim.

Yet they refuse to acknowledge that part of the reason that they are dismissed is because their overarching philosphy includes dismissing large portions of Judaic thought and tradition that have been accepted and incorparated into the wider body of Jewish Scholarship for centuiries by all the great Jewish Scholars.

Likewise many of their sources including Moreh Nevuchim were never ever accepted as legitamte because they conflict with the Zohar.

Basically they take up the belief system that has been viewed as illegitamte for centuries then cry foul when they are viewed as being illegitamite.
That is intellectual dis-honesty.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:36 am

And BTW a perfect example would be the approach to the Aggadic sections of Talmud.
The accepted approach for centuries was that they were not mere "allegories" rather they were Chazal's way of clothing esoteric concepts in a sort of "Code" so they could only be understood properly by those who were sufficatnley learned and would not be available for the masses.

(For further explanation see the Mamar Ha'Agdos by Rabbi Luzzato the author of Mesilas Yeshorim and renowned Kabbalist).

So basically RJ will take certain Aggadic sections, qoute them, then claim that it's superficial meaning proves Chazal did not know more science then say Pliny.
Yet, according to the Kabbalists, the point of what was written was not the actual science rather it was a tool used to teach concepts. So according to RJ they could take no proof froma superficial reading of the text!

Another point would be that Rabbi Slifkin claims to follow the approach of the Rambam, yet the Rambam has a detailed analysis of how to approach Aggadah in the "Shemonah Prukim" of the Rambam.

In it the Rambam states explictly that the group of people who think that Chazal only knew the science of their day are "fools"!

The Rambam explains anyone with a knowledge of Shas can see that Rabbinic scientific knowledge was far more advanced and must have come from "non-scientific" cources.

Yet a bedrock principle of RJ, the school of thought that claims to be based on the Rambam, is cotrary to the Rambam's own views!

↑ DrMom

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:45 am

Clearly Chazal was limited in some sense by the frontiers of scientific knowledge in their day.

Classic example: Chazal thought that worms spontaneously generated from cheese, and today we know that spontaneous generation is a fallacy.

This is no way implies that Chazal were unintelligent, simply that they were products of their time. As are we all.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:53 am

amother wrote:

And BTW a perfect example would be the approach to the Aggadic sections of Talmud.
....
Another point would be that Rabbi Slifkin claims to follow the approach of the Rambam, yet the Rambam has a detailed analysis of how to approach Aggadah in the "Shemonah Prukim" of the Rambam....

This last thing you wrote I'm pretty sure is a bit of a misrepresentation, but I'm not going to go into it, for a few reasons.

First of all, starting a discussion about the intellectual honestly or lack thereof of rationalists would really hijack the thread, way worse than it already has been.

Secondly, I've followed this argument online quite a few times and it just goes around in circles. Been there, done that.

But here's the real reason: I really couldn't care less that you, or anyone, thinks that this way of viewing things is not at all intellectually honest. Honestly, I don't. It's totally fine to me that you don't see the merit in this approach, and I see no need to prove to you that it's valid. Contrary to what some people here think of me, I'm not trying to push my views on others. I speak up only when people say certain views are kefira, are treif, are against the torah, etc. THEN I would feel compelled to defend them as legitimate. But if you don't like them because you find them lacking honesty, gezundeheit. I'm not looking to get into arguments over every stupid thing I disagree with someone about.

Maybe others want to take up this cause, but not me...

Last edited by BlueRose52 on Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:54 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ bamamama ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:53 am

amother wrote:

WHY ARE YOU AMOTHER????????????

And I see you are still into the strawmen and hyperbole. Nice. "Pro-evolutionists thing God can't do something that complex!!!!!" "They are so stupid that they claim to follow the Rambam when the Rambam says the opposite!!!" Yes, Rationalists are clearly lazy jerks who just haven't done their homework.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that people have done their homework and come to a different conclusion? You're happy where your belief is. Good for you. Some of us have come to different conclusions.

Now, for your Kuzari argument. No, I haven't learned it inside nor have I sat through a day-long seminar about it. Crib sheet it for me if it's so powerful. Because, honestly? All you're doing is continuing to tell me that I'm doing it wrong. It shouldn't take a day to prove something so powerful. All that day-long seminar does is confound, confuse, turn you in every direction so that most lay people can't pinpoint exactly wth is bothering them. Telling people they are just ignorant is not proving your point at all.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:01 am

bamamama wrote:

WHY ARE YOU AMOTHER????????????

It really seems to bother you a lot that she's amother. How come? I'll admit that I also don't like it because it makes the conversation a bit more difficult to follow, and yes, it also annoys me because it's emblematic of how people in certain groups are often paranoid about being seen taking a vocal stance, but c'mon, it's not really such a big deal.

More importantly, her anonymity has no bearing on the credibility of her arguments.

Let it go.

↑ bamamama ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:10 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

It does bother me. She's not willing to put her name (even a made-up internet name) on stance she's taking. To me, that goes to her reliability.

↑ FranticFrummie ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:11 am

For the Super Smart Amother (may I call you SSA?), and for BlueRose - I am not clever or educated enough to jump into this debate, so I'll just park this link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....phant

I think it's about as close to the truth as we're going to come, until we reach Olam Habah.